Tennis

[Facecloth]

Not sure what's a joke?

Too bad mate, mix of comedy & being clever.

But as I've said he has had some good performances, Zagreb most recently, but why shouldn't I be allowed to look at the negatives as well, failing to qualify for Miami, losing three matches this year to lower ranked players. If the good performances don't count, I wouldn't of mentioned them myself.

I believed Jerzy would probably lose to Mayer that time, but two Semi Finals in a row recently is decent stuff, he choked it away against Falla which we've seen before with Jerzy, and tomorrow he has another tough test against Bautista Agut, who has been playing really well of late.

Losing 4 matches against lower ranked players says Jerzy's playing relatively as well as Evans. Funny how you see it one way for one and one way got the other.

You clearly didn't read or understand what I said before. When I mentioned Leicester being top as an example I was trying to point out that your attitude is that Evans has moved up the rankings despite his good results, not because of. He's moved up 125 places in 6 months because he's played well, and he now player a higher standard of tennis, something you were lauding Jerzy for doing last year.

You may think you know everything, but you don't. Everybody else is telling you your talking out your arse, and you just point blank refuse to budge. If everyone is telling you you're an idiot, it might be time to start listening.

[kingfox]

Losing 4 matches against lower ranked players says Jerzy's playing relatively as well as Evans. Funny how you see it one way for one and one way got the other.

You clearly didn't read or understand what I said before. When I mentioned Leicester being top as an example I was trying to point out that your attitude is that Evans has moved up the rankings despite his good results, not because of. He's moved up 125 places in 6 months because he's played well, and he now player a higher standard of tennis, something you were lauding Jerzy for doing last year.

You may think you know everything, but you don't. Everybody else is telling you your talking out your arse, and you just point blank refuse to budge. If everyone is telling you you're an idiot, it might be time to start listening.

 

Jerzy is better though.

 

And why the fook are you using Leicester as an example, it's unnecessary completely ignored that bit altogether.

 

Dan Evans, has rose up for the rankings, purely off the back of two tournaments, just two tournaments of which he happened to play well in, but saying that what else has he done apart from that, nothing much, a very inconsistent player who has mental frailties, it was clear to see at the US Open that he is capable of chucking games(not matches) away pretty easily. 

 

And if he was playing a high standard of Tennis, surely he should be beating players ranked below him, yes he has beaten Kohlschrieber this year but that's only one win, he has also lost to two players I've never even heard of, and I bet you haven't heard of them either. 

 

I don't know everything, but I know more about Tennis than you do.

 

You before said I shouldn't look at results and stats, but quite frankly you've done the same in the past two days, one rule for one, a different one for me kind of thing isn't it 

[Facecloth]

Jerzy is better though.

 

And why the fook are you using Leicester as an example, it's unnecessary completely ignored that bit altogether.

 

Dan Evans, has rose up for the rankings, purely off the back of two tournaments, just two tournaments of which he happened to play well in, but saying that what else has he done apart from that, nothing much, a very inconsistent player who has mental frailties, it was clear to see at the US Open that he is capable of chucking games(not matches) away pretty easily. 

 

And if he was playing a high standard of Tennis, surely he should be beating players ranked below him, yes he has beaten Kohlschrieber this year but that's only one win, he has also lost to two players I've never even heard of, and I bet you haven't heard of them either. 

 

I don't know everything, but I know more about Tennis than you do.

 

You before said I shouldn't look at results and stats, but quite frankly you've done the same in the past two days, one rule for one, a different one for me kind of thing isn't it 

RELATIVELY!!!!!! RELATIVELY!!!! You ****ing retard! Do you understand the meaning of relatively? Yes Jerzy is better, but for his level, the players he's losing to is the same as the level of player Evans is losing to for the level he's at. 20th ranked player losing to to player ranked between 50 and 100 and 120th ranked player losing to a player ranked between 150 and 200. Do you understand, or that too complicated for your tiny little mind? Are you really that simple? This is like Father Ted explaining perspective to Dougal!

You should have read the Leicester bit. I used them as an example to take it away from tennis for a moment and show how your flawed logic would work in another situation. The fact you didn't understand what I was doing and chose to ignore it rather than even read it show how much of a tunnel vision twat you really are.

By player a higher standard of tennis I would still expect him to come I stuck against lower ranked players, like even the very best do, and I would expect it to happen more often than it does for the top players because he doesn't have to consistency of performance, but I would also expect hi to achieve things he's never done before, such as qualifying for a grand slam on merit for the first time or reaching his first apt Tour semi final.

Now go away until you've become intelligent enough to understand what you're talking about and polite enough to read my full post.

Edited 21 March 2014 by Facecloth

[kingfox]

RELATIVELY!!!!!! RELATIVELY!!!! You ****ing retard! Do you understand the meaning of relatively? Yes Jerzy is better, but for his level, the players he's losing to is the same as the level of player Evans is losing to for the level he's at. 20th ranked player losing to to player ranked between 50 and 100 and 120th ranked player losing to a player ranked between 150 and 200. Do you understand, or that too complicated for your tiny little mind? Are you really that simple? This is like Father Ted explaining perspective to Dougal!

You should have read the Leicester bit. I used them as an example to take it away from tennis for a moment and show how your flawed logic would work in another situation. The fact you didn't understand what I was doing and chose to ignore it rather than even read it show how much of a tunnel vision twat you really are.

By player a higher standard of tennis I would still expect him to come I stuck against lower ranked players, like even the very best do, and I would expect it to happen more often than it does for the top players because he doesn't have to consistency of performance, but I would also expect hi to achieve things he's never done before, such as qualifying for a grand slam on merit for the first time or reaching his first apt Tour semi final.

Now go away until you've become intelligent enough to understand what you're talking about and polite enough to read my full post.

 

But do you realise how good these players ranked between 50-100 are? Dan Evans should be doing much better than he is doing against players ranked 180-200 in the World, Jerzy shouldn't necessarily beat players ranked 50-100. Let's look at who Jerzy has lost to this year, first Dolgopolov former top 15 player, now back ranked inside the top 32, due to recent performances, the guy has just reached a final and a Semi Final. 

 

Mayer is a tough cookie, and bookies had him as favourite, while Falla can also be a tough cookie, he has put in some hard grafting performances in the past. While Jerzy has reached back to back Semis, losing to Gasquet & Berdych, which of course isn't bad at all. 

 

These players ranked 150-200, are ranked in that place for a reason, and you'd expect a player like Evans to be beating those players. The lack of consistency sticks out like a sore thumb, one week beating Kohlschreiber the next losing to a nobody. But I have never said he shouldn't qualify for Grand Slams, you are like putting words in my mouth and making stuff up that I've never said. 

 

Two tournaments have helped his ranking, just because they offered plenty of ranking points and he did well in them. 

 

Like I've said before, the things he has done haven't impressed me one bit.

 

And as for going away, I can post if I want to, as that's what a forums for, you don't own it.

[Facecloth]

But do you realise how good these players ranked between 50-100 are? Dan Evans should be doing much better than he is doing against players ranked 180-200 in the World, Jerzy shouldn't necessarily beat players ranked 50-100. Let's look at who Jerzy has lost to this year, first Dolgopolov former top 15 player, now back ranked inside the top 32, due to recent performances, the guy has just reached a final and a Semi Final. 

 

Mayer is a tough cookie, and bookies had him as favourite, while Falla can also be a tough cookie, he has put in some hard grafting performances in the past. While Jerzy has reached back to back Semis, losing to Gasquet & Berdych, which of course isn't bad at all. 

 

These players ranked 150-200, are ranked in that place for a reason, and you'd expect a player like Evans to be beating those players. The lack of consistency sticks out like a sore thumb, one week beating Kohlschreiber the next losing to a nobody. But I have never said he shouldn't qualify for Grand Slams, you are like putting words in my mouth and making stuff up that I've never said. 

 

Two tournaments have helped his ranking, just because they offered plenty of ranking points and he did well in them. 

 

Like I've said before, the things he has done haven't impressed me one bit.

 

And as for going away, I can post if I want to, as that's what a forums for, you don't own it.

You still don't understand how relatively works do you. You know you're problem, and I've said it before, you judge based on the very best. Everyone on here tipped Evans to be top 100. The losses he has had and the mental frailties he shows are perfectly normal for a player of the level he's at. Yet you talk about what's wrong with him like your talking about Djokovic. Yes he's inconsistent, yes he throws away games, he looking to be ranked in and around 100, not top 10. Am I impressed by Evans? No, not when you try and stand him along side the lines of Nadal and Murray, or even Janowiscz. But when I look at where's he's come from, and the mental battles both on and off the court he's faced and I look at what he producing now, then I am impressed. British men's tennis has been in the doldrums for years, and just to have two players in the top 100 is a big step forward. In a year Evans has moved from the 300's to within touching distance of the top 100 hundred. That's not just off the back of two tournaments is it! His ranking improved by nigh on 30 places after the US open at the back end of 2013 (on top of the ranking boost he got from the slam I mean), so that's not done to Zagreb is it, as that was this year. Every player from Nadal down will lose to players worse than them, sometimes to truly shite players, but to progress as a player you want to achieve new things and improve your ranking (if not already number 1), Evans has done both those things on a significant level in the last year, yes he's lost to worse players but they all do but them important thing for him is that he used to be one of those worse players, but he's performed well enough for the rankings to say better than them.

Yes you're free to post here as it's a forum, but I think 90% would be happy if you left as I think most people think you're an annoying little **** and wish you'd just **** off and never return. You're like a Leicester supporting Lamby, only more annoying.

[kingfox]

You still don't understand how relatively works do you. You know you're problem, and I've said it before, you judge based on the very best. Everyone on here tipped Evans to be top 100. The losses he has had and the mental frailties he shows are perfectly normal for a player of the level he's at. Yet you talk about what's wrong with him like your talking about Djokovic. Yes he's inconsistent, yes he throws away games, he looking to be ranked in and around 100, not top 10. Am I impressed by Evans? No, not when you try and stand him along side the lines of Nadal and Murray, or even Janowiscz. But when I look at where's he's come from, and the mental battles both on and off the court he's faced and I look at what he producing now, then I am impressed. British men's tennis has been in the doldrums for years, and just to have two players in the top 100 is a big step forward. In a year Evans has moved from the 300's to within touching distance of the top 100 hundred. That's not just off the back of two tournaments is it! His ranking improved by nigh on 30 places after the US open at the back end of 2013 (on top of the ranking boost he got from the slam I mean), so that's not done to Zagreb is it, as that was this year. Every player from Nadal down will lose to players worse than them, sometimes to truly shite players, but to progress as a player you want to achieve new things and improve your ranking (if not already number 1), Evans has done both those things on a significant level in the last year, yes he's lost to worse players but they all do but them important thing for him is that he used to be one of those worse players, but he's performed well enough for the rankings to say better than them.

Yes you're free to post here as it's a forum, but I think 90% would be happy if you left as I think most people think you're an annoying little **** and wish you'd just **** off and never return. You're like a Leicester supporting Lamby, only more annoying.

 

Dan Evans to progress now needs to start beating players around him & beating the odd player ranked 50 or higher. He won't progress if he keeps losing to players ranked below him and not qualifying for events. That's pretty common knowledge, or like in the past week or so, his ranking will slowly dropped. Same applies to Jerzy, however he has tougher opponents week in week out, there's a lot of solid players ranked 50-100 that so many top 32 players can lose to. 

 

I've said I don't expect Dan Evans to a World Beater, but you are accusing me of basically saying that. If I'm basing him on the Worlds best, I would of said he should beat the likes of Novak & Rafa but I haven't and never will, because I'm not stupid, but yet again in your above post, your basically accusing me of saying that type of thing. 

 

Of course more results have warranted him to climb the rankings, but I and always have talked about recent times, ever since the US Open. His recent ranking has been helped entirely on two decent runs in just two tournaments. And as for mental frailties has he really improved in that department, like I said you could see his mental frailties at the US Open, & if some recent results are anything to go by, he doesn't seem mentally solid when playing players ranked about 50 places below him.

 

This is purely a debate, and I keep on rattling the cage, you think your right, I think I'm right, some randomer Tennis fans might agree with what your saying, they might agree with what I'm saying.

 

I'm a Leicester fan on a Leicester forum, and I am staying, like it or not, if I left this forum would get a little boring, and I'll have people begging me to come back. 

[Facecloth]

Dan Evans to progress now needs to start beating players around him & beating the odd player ranked 50 or higher. He won't progress if he keeps losing to players ranked below him and not qualifying for events. That's pretty common knowledge, or like in the past week or so, his ranking will slowly dropped. Same applies to Jerzy, however he has tougher opponents week in week out, there's a lot of solid players ranked 50-100 that so many top 32 players can lose to.

I've said I don't expect Dan Evans to a World Beater, but you are accusing me of basically saying that. If I'm basing him on the Worlds best, I would of said he should beat the likes of Novak & Rafa but I haven't and never will, because I'm not stupid, but yet again in your above post, your basically accusing me of saying that type of thing.

Of course more results have warranted him to climb the rankings, but I and always have talked about recent times, ever since the US Open. His recent ranking has been helped entirely on two decent runs in just two tournaments. And as for mental frailties has he really improved in that department, like I said you could see his mental frailties at the US Open, & if some recent results are anything to go by, he doesn't seem mentally solid when playing players ranked about 50 places below him.

This is purely a debate, and I keep on rattling the cage, you think your right, I think I'm right, some randomer Tennis fans might agree with what your saying, they might agree with what I'm saying.

I'm a Leicester fan on a Leicester forum, and I am staying, like it or not, if I left this forum would get a little boring, and I'll have people begging me to come back.

Firstly I said you were judging him based on the top players not comparing him. If you actually read what I said, I said you are talking about his flaws and pointing out things that would stop him reaching the very top, when he's only looking to climb to the top 100 where players share the same flaws.

Secondly, I've shown you proof his ranking climbed 30 odd place AFTER the US open and BEFORE Zagreb. So how is his rise solely down to those two tournaments! Also like to point out last year you said yourself Janowicz rise was down to one particular tournament, yet that's something to be praised. You can look at individual results to try and prove he's not good enough to make a top 100 ranking, but you could look at individual results in any sport, what does Chelsea losing to Villa last week and drawing with WBA earlier in the season tell us? That they're not good enough to win the league because they struggle to beat bottom half teams? Well clearly that's wrong because they sit atop the table. Dan Evans may have had some dodgy results, but his climb up the rankings proves he's making progress.

Thirdly, there wouldn't be people begging you to come back, there'd be a party in the streets of FT if you left. If I knew the mods wouldn't delete it I'd start a poll in general chat, where I bet 70-90% of people would either be happy if you left or have you on ignore.

Oh and I'm not accusing you of being stupid, I'm saying you are. And of all the things we've both typed, you being an idiot is the most factual of them all.

Edited 22 March 2014 by Facecloth

[kingfox]

Firstly I said you were judging him based on the top players not comparing him. If you actually read what I said, I said you are talking about his flaws and pointing out things that would stop him reaching the very top, when he's only looking to climb to the top 100 where players share the same flaws.

Secondly, I've shown you proof his ranking climbed 30 odd place AFTER the US open and BEFORE Zagreb. So how is his rise solely down to those two tournaments! Also like to point out last year you said yourself Janowicz rise was down to one particular tournament, yet that's something to be praised. You can look at individual results to try and prove he's not good enough to make a top 100 ranking, but you could look at individual results in any sport, what does Chelsea losing to Villa last week and drawing with WBA earlier in the season tell us? That they're not good enough to win the league because they struggle to beat bottom half teams? Well clearly that's wrong because they sit atop the table. Dan Evans may have had some dodgy results, but his climb up the rankings proves he's making progress.

Thirdly, there wouldn't be people begging you to come back, there'd be a party in the streets of FT if you left. If I knew the mods wouldn't delete it I'd start a poll in general chat, where I bet 70-90% of people would either be happy if you left or have you on ignore.

Oh and I'm not accusing you of being stupid, I'm saying you are. And of all the things we've both typed, you being an idiot is the most factual of them all.

 

I'm not though I'm I. Judging him comparing him, same kind of thing really and I'm doing neither. I know I'm talking about his flaws and stuff, which I'm allowed to do and point out.

 

I know he climbed about 30 places, purely because of the US Open, that's where he got the points from to achieve that. US Open he started at 179 in the World at the start of that tournament, and because he reached R4 he climbed to 149. Since then his ranking has moved either up or down a couple of places, at the start of Zagreb he was ranked 147, because of his run in Zagreb his ranking has climbed to 124. So those two tournaments have solely affected his ranking in a good way, so therefore I'm right.

 

What I'm only saying is if he starts losing again to players ranked below him, he won't progress very far. If he can start beating players around him, and the odd top 50 player say, then obviously he will definitely get into the top 100.

 

Some people have said before, I'm annoying but if I left, this place would be boring. Start a poll if you want, ask for people's opinions on myself, and you will probably be right, but quite a few will like me one day, and dislike me the next.

 

I'm not stupid and I'm not acting like an idiot, my opinion is just as valid as yours, you are mistaking a lot of things I'm putting.

 

And finally as for Jerzy, tbh I wouldn't be surprised if he loses tonight.

[Facecloth]

I'm not though I'm I. Judging him comparing him, same kind of thing really and I'm doing neither. I know I'm talking about his flaws and stuff, which I'm allowed to do and point out.

I know he climbed about 30 places, purely because of the US Open, that's where he got the points from to achieve that. US Open he started at 179 in the World at the start of that tournament, and because he reached R4 he climbed to 149. Since then his ranking has moved either up or down a couple of places, at the start of Zagreb he was ranked 147, because of his run in Zagreb his ranking has climbed to 124. So those two tournaments have solely affected his ranking in a good way, so therefore I'm right.

What I'm only saying is if he starts losing again to players ranked below him, he won't progress very far. If he can start beating players around him, and the odd top 50 player say, then obviously he will definitely get into the top 100.

Some people have said before, I'm annoying but if I left, this place would be boring. Start a poll if you want, ask for people's opinions on myself, and you will probably be right, but quite a few will like me one day, and dislike me the next.

I'm not stupid and I'm not acting like an idiot, my opinion is just as valid as yours, you are mistaking a lot of things I'm putting.

And finally as for Jerzy, tbh I wouldn't be surprised if he loses tonight.

The rise to the 170 was due to the US, the rise to the 140's was AFTER! And you wonder why I call you stupid. He climbed to the 120's BEFORE Zagreb!

He can lose to anyone, as long as he keeps achieving things he never had before, he'll keep progressing up the rankings. How do you know the guy ranked 200th isn't in a rich vein of form, or is a young lad with a new coach, etc. You've said yourself you don't know the players. It's not who Evans is losing to that will determine how high up the rankings it's how far into tournaments he can get. Yes it's disappointing to see him lose to lower ranked players, but the fact he's climbed significantly in the ranking, due to consistently out performing himself not from just two tournaments, the fact he's achieving new things, and the fact he has now toppled two or three top 30 players shows his career is on an upwards curve, until you can grasp that in your tiny little mind it's not worth discussing this with you.

I would start that poll but I know the mods would view it as bullying and delete it. This place wouldn't be boring without you, there are quite a lot of funnier posters than you, and there are quite a lot more well informed posters than you. Like I said earlier, if one person says you're wrong stand your ground, if practically everyone is (like everyone on here is telling you, because it's not just me) then it might be time to listen.

[kingfox]

The rise to the 170 was due to the US, the rise to the 140's was AFTER! And you wonder why I call you stupid. He climbed to the 120's BEFORE Zagreb!

He can lose to anyone, as long as he keeps achieving things he never had before, he'll keep progressing up the rankings. How do you know the guy ranked 200th isn't in a rich vein of form, or is a young lad with a new coach, etc. You've said yourself you don't know the players. It's not who Evans is losing to that will determine how high up the rankings it's how far into tournaments he can get. Yes it's disappointing to see him lose to lower ranked players, but the fact he's climbed significantly in the ranking, due to consistently out performing himself not from just two tournaments, the fact he's achieving new things, and the fact he has now toppled two or three top 30 players shows his career is on an upwards curve, until you can grasp that in your tiny little mind it's not worth discussing this with you.

I would start that poll but I know the mods would view it as bullying and delete it. This place wouldn't be boring without you, there are quite a lot of funnier posters than you, and there are quite a lot more well informed posters than you. Like I said earlier, if one person says you're wrong stand your ground, if practically everyone is (like everyone on here is telling you, because it's not just me) then it might be time to listen.

 

It wasn't though his ranking at the start of the US Open was 179, his ranking after was 149. And he didn't climb to 120's before Zagreb. You are looking at the rankings and dates wrong. The week starting Zagreb he was ranked 147, he climbed to 124 because of his run in Zagreb, which was his ranking at the start of Marseille. Zagreb started on the 3rd of Feb, it says he was ranked 147 at the start of that date, a week later it says he was ranked at 123. You are wrong, it's in clear black and white on the ATP website.

 

All that in the last paragraph is utter bollocks, because unfortunately I'm not wrong. Start a poll, bullying I'm the type of person who laughs all that up, I find it hilarious.

[Facecloth]

It wasn't though his ranking at the start of the US Open was 179, his ranking after was 149. And he didn't climb to 120's before Zagreb. You are looking at the rankings and dates wrong. The week starting Zagreb he was ranked 147, he climbed to 124 because of his run in Zagreb, which was his ranking at the start of Marseille. Zagreb started on the 3rd of Feb, it says he was ranked 147 at the start of that date, a week later it says he was ranked at 123. You are wrong, it's in clear black and white on the ATP website.

All that in the last paragraph is utter bollocks, because unfortunately I'm not wrong. Start a poll, bullying I'm the type of person who laughs all that up, I find it hilarious.

THE MODS WOULD CLASS IT AS BULLYING!!! DO YOU ACTUALLY READ ANYTHING???

I don't care how it makes you feel, but the mods would remove the thread in minutes. If you're not gonna read what I put, this is pointless. We went over the not reading things with the Leicester analogy, and you're still doing it, so I'm done, not only are you an idiot, you're a rude ignorant **** as well, and you're not worth anymore of my time.

Edited 22 March 2014 by Facecloth

[kingfox]

THE MODS WOULD CLASS IT AS BULLYING!!! DO YOU ACTUALLY READ ANYTHING???

I don't care how it makes you feel, but the mods would remove the thread in minutes. If you're not gonna read what I put, this is pointless. We went over the not reading things with the Leicester analogy, and you're still doing it, so I'm done, not only are you an idiot, you're a rude ignorant **** as well, and you're not worth anymore of my time.

 

See you don't reply to the other bit, as I'm right on this occasion. 

 

Your an idiot as well mate, I'm right, I'm right, you just made a cock of yourself with the rankings and stuff, and because I'm right, you send abusive messages towards me.

 

Much love x

Edited 22 March 2014 by kingfox

[Facecloth]

See you don't reply to the other bit, as I'm right on this occasion.

Your an idiot as well mate, I'm right, I'm right, you just made a cock of yourself with the rankings and stuff, and because I'm right, you send abusive messages towards me.

Much love x

I didn't bother because your clearly not reading my posts. Like I say you're ignorant and rude, clearly just skimming post and then replying with bullshit.

And if I am wrong on the dates of his rise then sorry, but why did his position then stick when you reckon he played so badly? He's obviously playing at a more consistent higher level to keep pushing upwards, two tournaments won't solely send you up nearly 200 ranking places.

[kingfox]

I didn't bother because your clearly not reading my posts. Like I say you're ignorant and rude, clearly just skimming post and then replying with bullshit.

And if I am wrong on the dates of his rise then sorry, but why did his position then stick when you reckon he played so badly? He's obviously playing at a more consistent higher level to keep pushing upwards, two tournaments won't solely send you up nearly 200 ranking places.

 

I did read your posts, and I put you right. I don't have to reply to all of it, comparing it to football clubs is stupid, I don't like it when people do that kind of thing, not just yourself, I find it annoying when people do that.

 

Rankings do stick, of course just because you lose one match in qualifying, your not going to drop 200 places back down the rankings because of it, because of course it doesn't work like that. He will drop the odd place which he has done, same applies to any other player in the ATP & WTA, unless your injured, then your ranking will slide dramatically. 

 

It's on pure evidence mate, you can see it on the ATP website clear as anything. He has climbed about 60 places purely because of two tournaments. Climbing 200 or so places of course took time, but other results before the US Open of course helped him with that, but we haven't talked about anything before then, well I haven't.

Edited 22 March 2014 by kingfox

[Facecloth]

I did read your posts, and I put you right. I don't have to reply to all of it, comparing it to football clubs is stupid, I don't like it when people do that kind of thing, not just yourself, I find it annoying when people do that.

Rankings do stick, of course just because you lose one match in qualifying, your not going to drop 200 places back down the rankings because of it, because of course it doesn't work like that. He will drop the odd place which he has done, same applies to any other player in the ATP & WTA, unless your injured, then your ranking will slide dramatically.

It's on pure evidence mate, you can see it on the ATP website clear as anything. He has climbed about 60 places purely because of two tournaments. Climbing 200 or so places of course took time, but other results before the US Open of course helped him with that, but we haven't talked about anything before then, well I haven't.

Right let me spell this out simply for you. On the Leicester thing, aside from the fact it's not stupid to use analogies of different situations to explain the one you're talking about and the fact you don't understand that show you're a bit thick, the point I'm making is when I used the analogy your next reply clearly stated you got to that point of the post and didn't bother reading it. So you've admitted there you've dismissed part of my post without even reading it. The analogy works, it makes sense, and it's not my fault you're too stupid to understand it, but the least you can do is actually read it.

On the bullying, I said I would start a poll but the MODS would see it as bullying and delete the thread in minutes. Your response was that bullying didn't bother you and you laugh it off. You've clearly not read the bit about me saying the mods would delete the thread.

So even aside from your misguided bullshit ramblings on tennis, you're extremely rude, arrogant and ignorant when it actually comes to paying attention and bothering to take in the whole response people are offering you. Now I could spend time replying to those points you've just made about Evans, but I fail to see the point right now until you can get it into your thick skull you have to read everything people write, or debating is pointless.

Edited 23 March 2014 by Facecloth

[kingfox]

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

 

Had enough myself now.

 

Told you Jerzy would lose yesterday.

 

Bye

[kingfox]

So even aside from your misguided bullshit ramblings on tennis, you're extremely rude, arrogant and ignorant when it actually comes to paying attention and bothering to take in the whole response people are offering you. Now I could spend time replying to those points you've just made about Evans, but I fail to see the point right now until you can get it into your thick skull you have to read everything people write, or debating is pointless.

 

Misguided bullshit, you talked bullshit yesterday when you got things wrong, and were adamant you were right.

 

Why I'm I rude, arrogant & ignorant, I don't have to read everything in your posts if I don't want, I scan quickly through most posts through this entire forum, not just in this thread.

 

I can do whatever I bloody want, don't tell me what I can and can't do.

 

You are rude yourself, by giving me verbals, I throughout the last two days, haven't ever told you to fook off.

[Facecloth]

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

 

Had enough myself now.

 

Told you Jerzy would lose yesterday.

 

Bye

Exactly so I'm right about you ignoring half my post. Arrogant little ****.

[kingfox]

Exactly so I'm right about you ignoring half my post. Arrogant little ****.

 

Look.

 

You said you don't want to speak anymore, ooooh I'm fed up, I don't have to reply to you anymore.

 

Now you are calling me arrogant for ignoring some bits of your posts.

 

It's my decision, what I reply about, I don't have to reply to every bit of your posts if I don't want to.

 

You are bizarre. 

[Facecloth]

Misguided bullshit, you talked bullshit yesterday when you got things wrong, and were adamant you were right.

Why I'm I rude, arrogant & ignorant, I don't have to read everything in your posts if I don't want, I scan quickly through most posts through this entire forum, not just in this thread.

I can do whatever I bloody want, don't tell me what I can and can't do.

You are rude yourself, by giving me verbals, I throughout the last two days, haven't ever told you to fook off.

How can you debate something properly if you're not totally taking in the counter argument. What's the point? If you want a discussion then listen to the response, it's very rude to just skim post, how can you give a full response when you don't know what the other person actually said. Edited 23 March 2014 by Facecloth

[Facecloth]

Look.

 

You said you don't want to speak anymore, ooooh I'm fed up, I don't have to reply to you anymore.

 

Now you are calling me arrogant for ignoring some bits of your posts.

 

It's my decision, what I reply about, I don't have to reply to every bit of your posts if I don't want to.

 

You are bizarre.

I can do this, I can do that, etc etc.

Yeah you can reply to whatever you want, but at the very least you should read it all before deciding whether to reply to that part of not. Not rocket science is it.

[kingfox]

I can do this, I can do that, etc etc.

Yeah you can reply to whatever you want, but at the very least you should read it all before deciding whether to reply to that part of not. Not rocket science is it.

 

I did read all of it, I scanned through it quickly like people do with papers and magazines.

 

It's my choice of what to reply to.

 

How can you debate something properly if you're not totally taking in the counter argument. What's the point? If you want a discussion then listen to the response, it's very rude to just skim post, how can you give a full response when you don't know what the other person actually said.

 

There's different parts of the posts, I replied to the one's I wanted to talk about. I don't find everything interesting about people's posts.

 

As I said I don't like it when people compare this to that, it's silly, someone mentioned about Wayne Rooney before on this forum and compared him to something else, and it was silly and pointless.

[Facecloth]

I did read all of it, I scanned through it quickly like people do with papers and magazines.

 

It's my choice of what to reply to.

 

 

There's different parts of the posts, I replied to the one's I wanted to talk about. I don't find everything interesting about people's posts.

 

As I said I don't like it when people compare this to that, it's silly, someone mentioned about Wayne Rooney before on this forum and compared him to something else, and it was silly and pointless.

You're too stupid for words. You're on ignore from now on.

[kingfox]

You're too stupid for words. You're on ignore from now on.

 

I'll do the same with you I think.

 

You don't like it when I'm right.

 

And you call me ignorant & rude, but your the rude one for telling me to fook off.

 

Strange.

[leicsmac]

Terribly sorry guys, but is it possible to get back to talking about the tennis? 

 

Miami - the last hardcourt tournament before the swing onto the red dirt has just started up. Murray defending winners points from last year and has a pretty shitty draw (Djokovic's quarter), but at least he had fairly little trouble dealing with Ebden first up. Miami always seems to play a bit slower than most hardcourts so look for some of the claycourt specialists who have some pedigree on hard (Ferrer et al) to be good on this one. Probable Djoko-Nadal final I reckon (easy one to go for, but highly probable here).